Slashdot Mirror
Ret. World Bank CTO on Desktop Linux TCO Facts
comforteagle writes "W. McDonald Buck, retired CTO of World Bank, believes we need to take a more honest and frank look at the Cost Analyses it will take to put Linux on the corporate desktop. In Part I of Corporate Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth he begins with one of the most common misconceptions... that a business can buy a computer without Windows and save money in the transaction."
I'm a Linux devotee. I'm offended by the rigged analyses that Microsoft has purchased in its "Get the Facts" campaign. But I think it is important that the open source community demonstrate fairly that open source software presents a better cost/benefit case than Windows. This case is not helped by resorting to the same kind of trickery and distortion of which Microsoft is guilty. I don't like to see obviously skewed analysis on Linux's behalf any more than I like to see it on Microsoft's behalf. No that's wrong. I have a greater dislike of pro-Linux trickery, because I expect better of us. Without an honest and frank appraisal we don't really know where we are. Better to know where we are, even if parts of the truth aren't always palatable.
So I set out to review some of the TCO analyses I had seen on the net. To begin, I wanted to get a realistic assessment of how much one could save on a Windows-free computer purchase. It's at least erroneous, and probably intentional distortion, to use the Windows shelf price of $299 in a TCO analysis. Nobody pays $299 to get Windows with a computer. A fair assessment of what they do pay is the difference between otherwise identical configurations with and without Windows. That is what I wanted to find, and so I went shopping. I thought this would be a relatively straightforward number to get. Silly me.
When I went to IBM's website I couldn't find an option on their desktops to enable me to buy Linux (or anything other than Windows). After diligent searching I simply couldn't figure out where IBM had hidden it. So I called their toll free number for help. This is IBM - you know, the company that has invested more in Linux than any other company? The company who says "the future is Open". That IBM. The sales rep explained that IBM does not sell desktop computers without Windows. I thought at first I was just getting the run-around, that the guy didn't know what he was talking about and just wanted to get rid of me. But he explained that I was not the first caller to ask for this, that he gets these calls from time to time, and he has, he says, checked it out thoroughly. There is no option to buy a desktop without Windows. In fairness, maybe this is part of the reason IBM sold the PC business.
Then I went to Dell's website. I had had some experience there a couple years ago, and had a memory that their configurator would allow me to pick operating systems. I was right, there was an operating system selection combo box which offered the choice of Windows XP Home or Professional. Where is Linux? It took me a while to figure out, but at least they sell such systems. Dell has invented a whole new series of systems, "the N series", which have pretty much the same features available but come with no Windows. This separation makes it pretty hard to compare: you have to drill all the way down into the regular systems from the top, and configure. To compare you have to back all the way out, and drill in again into the N systems. I'm sure the difficulty in comparing the prices is just an accident, of course. I did this a few times, trying to figure out what I was doing wrong, because the systems without Windows kept coming out more expensive. Eventually I stopped trying to remember, and carefully wrote out an exact configuration, one that was simple, and that I knew was available in both places. PIV 3.0G 800FSB, 512M/400 2Dimms, 80G 7200, 48xCD, built in sound, video & net, basic KB/M, no speakers.
The boxes with Windows are less expensive than the boxes without.
Did you go back and read that sentence again?
I tried a lot of configurations. I was looking at the Optiplex line, including the SX and GX 280, and the 170L, and I found a few where the Windows option costs $10-$20 more. Just a few. Mostly the Windows boxes cost up to $230 less when you factor in the big "instant discounts" which are available only on the Windows boxes. I called their toll free number too, and another polite fellow explained to me that they have this assemb
This guy is trying to make a fair TCO analysis of Linux Vs. WIndows and part 1 doesn't look good for Linux. Now it is time for slashdotters to say that businesses should Install all their systems from scratch or Buy the Walmart systems.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Linux installation cost penalty? Who would have thought?
When you buy into the Microsoft platform, you are buying endless upgrades for years on end.
When a user bought Windows 3.1, they also unwittingly bought Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, and Windows XP. This is planned obsolescense for no other reason except to keep Micorsoft shareholders happy.
With Linux, you avoid that ridiculous problem.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
But... but... but IT'S FREE!?!?!
I like suggestions, but I don't like contributing towards them.
"The boxes with Windows are less expensive than the boxes without."
This is common sense, they're paying us to help dispose of their rubbish.
But seriously, doesn't anyone else see that until DEMAND is noticed, SUPPLY won't increase?
I guess that once WalMart starts selling Linux boxes (laptops in this case), and they don't sell (because no mom with 3 kids hanging on the shopping cart is going to buy one), we're going to take an even bigger step back.
Now accepting PayPal donations!
Too bad this kind of analysis didn't make it into the anti-trust cases....
We rely HEAVILY on vendor software...and I'm not talking about office and that crap. I'm talking about MANY different systems, almost all of which have some kind of desktop component. Guess which OS all these desktop components are made for?
Sure, all the Linux Gurus can point to software that does the same thing...the only problem is big banks don't like writing/customizing/modifying/maintaining software. They're not in the software business. They want a vendor to do that and for most Linux desktop apps, that's not an option. They MUST have a contract with a well established vendor that can fix an application when it stops working. I wish it wasn't that way....hey I'm a programmer....but I can't blame them either.
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
ok.. so linux is not cheaper because windows is "free" as well.
i think he should take a good look at his support contracts and then figure out just what's wrong with his reasoning here. that's right, his reasoning would be ok IF he was arguing about home desktopts - but he isn't, so what does the initial ten or twenty bucks mean?
of course, maybe the final chapter will be "linux just can't compete.. because linux can't give me huge discounts if i would have said that ms sucks".
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
/me ducks
Stick Men
A fair assessment of what they do pay is the difference between otherwise identical configurations with and without Windows. That is what I wanted to find, and so I went shopping. I thought this would be a relatively straightforward number to get. Silly me.
It is a relatively straightforward number to get: 100 EUR. source: http://siggelkow.de/ (just an example)
IDIOT!
He's talking about corporate purchases; where the company buys off the shelf, simply re-buying "their standard configuration" each time another cubicle needs filling. These kinds of customers don't build their PC from bits, you fool!
And they DO worry about tiny differences in price; because they get multiplied out by the hundreds of boxes getting bought by the whole company.
Get a brain before using your keyboard, FFS.
I just bought a gray-box computer for my Dad. After all the negotiations, the vendor reduced the price by $65 when I deleted Windows XP Home from the package. A significant chunk of a $515 (CAN) box.
The guy I brought it from was pretty impressed when I slapped in a MEPIS CD and checked out everything - RAM, CPU, Ethernet, Multimedia - in a few minutes in the storefront. I left a copy with him.
He is right that if you wish to purchase a PC from a major distributor you will likely get no break for not having windows. But for a moment lets say that one where to simply buy Windows boxes and then reinstall them when they arrive.
I know that to some, this might sound silly, but it is common practice in many medium to large business anyway. They will simply overwrite the OS that comes on the box with the version that they want configured in the manner that they want it for their IT department.
Now lets look MS office that is installed on the image that is deployed on almost every corporate system across the country. Now if you are a company of any size you will likely get a very nice discount of the retail price, although if you are talking 1,000 PC or more, unless you wish to risk ripping of MS, the price will still add up to a pretty penny.
Then we have things such as Exchange, which at first everyone will swear that they need because it has integrated scheduling functions, despite the fact that most corporations hardly ever use the functionality, except for one or two very annoying people who are quickly ignored by everyone else (if you are one of those people, think of that statement as humor). Here is where the price starts getting steep.
But he does make a fair point, that when we discuss this matters it is only fair that we make an effort to be fair with ourselves and others on the subject.
For the entrepreneural types out there this is a golden opportunity.
/.'ers could assume that responsibility... At least those with some clout...
Outfit systems identical to Dell/HP and all the others, only do it with same hardware specs and equivalent software (or better) Linux based naturally.
Put up a comparisons sheet and start making money... naturally you need to get the marketing droids fired up but I suppose the
And you seem to be ignoring the fact that no corporation in existence is going to start building their own computers from components. The added labour costs make this the least cost effective alternative.
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
The world's largest Linux migration is speeding ahead, with the German national railway announcing today it has successfully moved all of its 55,000 Lotus Notes users onto the open-source operating system.
1 817&e=10&u=/pcworld/20050202/tc_pcworld/119537&sid =96120756
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=
> He's talking about corporate purchases; where the company
> buys off the shelf, simply re-buying "their standard
> configuration" each time another cubicle needs filling. These
> kinds of customers don't build their PC from bits, you fool!
> Get a brain before using your keyboard, FFS.
Well sorry you are an irrelevant answer. You corporate buy a few dells in the standard configuration with windows or with linux whichever is cheaper and then put the linux mirror back on it. total time spent like minutes? And you don't have to pay to be locked into MS again! So your benefitting twice.
So either way if windows is cheaper then linux is the same price
And if linux is cheaper then windows is more expensive.
The best mac support site on the web
Purchase price is 15% of the lifcycle TCO you moron. The other 85% is support costs. And that is absolutely less with Linux because of the corespondingly less break-fix, patching, security disaster recoveries.
... after the whole series will be that Linux does not save money for an average company. This first part gives a major point why a company won't save money. Another major point, I think, will be the time spent in helping users using Linux. The average company will have employees who are used to Windows and they will thus need help to get on track using Linux regulary. This time will probably cost a company much more than the licenses for the applications needed if they ran Windows. Another point I see coming up is the time for installing software. I'm a very experienced Linux user, and a less so Windows user, but I'm finding it quite alot easier to install software on a Windows system. And then I'm not talking simple software such as firefox, I'm talking complicated applications such as j2ee application servers (for sandbox development), advanced IDEs and so on.
:).
My two cents
He spoke specifically to this. In fact, he admits to buying machines without Windows on them. The problem is, companies don't buy computers that way. Company procurement follows rules; rules which he is trying to follow.
Nobody every got fired for buying IBM.
I think you are ignoring who the article author is.
For techies, building your own or going with not so mainstream manufacturers isn't a problem.
But for W. McDonald Buck, retired CTO of World Bank, he wants a big name, 1st tier manufacturer to supply his PC, not Joe Bobs PC Hardware Shack.
The point Buck makes is:
The boxes with Windows are less expensive than the boxes without.
Or to be more accurate:
It looks to me, however, like the Microsoft monopoly has such a stranglehold on the tier 1 manufacturers that it is now not possible for a corporate shopper to save money by avoiding Windows unless they are prepared to go outside the first tier...... Small businesses may buy computers this way if they have or hire somebody tech savvy to help them, but I don't think this is how your average homeowner buys, and I know it isn't how large companies buy.
Which is the main point he makes. The big players, including IBM, are still shills for the Microsoft tax.
The word Corporate Desktop for Linux I usually hear together with the name GNOME which is praised like such. That's where the first problem begins. GNOME is by far to immature and broken to be taken serious. Lack of applications for business exists too. I think the real corporate would have benefit more with KDE as Corporate Desktop solution because it feels common with Windows and supplies a lot of business centric tools. Well real experts will know what I mean. GNOME is always stuck in the 'hackers toy' area and will probably never mature enough to be worth being used in the business. While having nice ideas it still lacks the people who can translate these ideas in usable code.
I would agree except for the Access bit. Access/Excell is actually a very dangerous tool for companies. Sure it is ok for the one person perhaps 2 user database. But that is rairly the case. What happens most of the time this guy in makes an Access Database then it grows and grows scope creep kicks in and before you know it you have a full application written an access by some guy with minimal programming experience which leads to a lot of bugs and difficult to manage. Then it is often handed to IT to support and forcing them to read threw the code and rewrite it again (Wasting more time). If the program was sent to IT before all this stupid access/excell stuff the program would probably have less problems in the long run. The Developer usually can sense if the scope creep is fixing and and readjust the program design for more expandability. Access is much like Active-X controls on web pages. Yea they are handy but more often then not they are more of a problem then they are worth. As for the rest of your post I would agree.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The title of the article is Corporate Desktop Linux. Corporations don't piece their systems together.
So he purposely misstates any facts and says that windows is cheaper because some pricey manufacturers choose to sell windows for less than linux installed machines. This is silly too because you can just buy the chjeaper windows default install and put linux on it with a burned CD you downloaded for no cost. And then throw away the Windows CD!
No, he's stating the facts correctly. Theoretically, buying an N-series from Dell should be cheaper, because they are not including a Windows license in that price. But it's not.
If you want it without a particular option, the price should be less than an identical system that includes that option.
Just like buying a car without a radio. It should cost less than an identical car with a radio. Not more.
Many, perhaps the majority of our local (Perth, WestOz) wholesalers will sell you a "naked" system for AUD$50-150 apiece less than an XP-burdened system. Many of them have been offering this for over a year.
Forex, one wholesaler is offering 2.4GHz Celery, 256MB, 40GB, CD, Floppy for AUD$399exGST. With XP Home OEM, AUD$514; with XP Pro OEM, AUD$584; with 98SE OEM, AUD$578. Their home page proudly displays the Microsoft logo, too, and until recently had a direct link to their "piracy" (as in, "We're going to copy down all of your sea shanties and not pay you any money for them!") page.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
OK you are IT Manager of a large company. You have 1000 systems to install. What are you going to do. Buy from Dell/HP/IBM who you know can deliver, Try to organize all the parts you will need bargin shop for all of them Then have your IT Staff build 1000 boxen, Or call Mr. Noname running from the basement and ask him to build 1000boxes for you.
I would probably go with Dell/HP/IBM because it is actually a better value because your time and the staffs time costs money too and you also need to save your butt from management if something goes wrong.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Mr. Buck tried to take the cost of a box without Windows installed, and compare it to a box that does have windows installed.
.doc files perfectly, but that is hardly the fault of the developers. They have done a great job reverse-engineering the format as best they can so that it renders well in OO.
What he forgot to mention is that any serious business trying to get some work done "the Microsoft way" must own a copy of MS office for each computer in their workspace. So for a small business who can't afford huge site licenses, that's going to add another $379.00 to the cost of each workstation. Even if the bundled windoze works out to only $20 a machine, you are still out $400 per worksation just to open and read your doc and xls files.
Another consideration is that in the Windoze world, you pretty much have to have a full-blown installation for each user. Yes, I know you can do thin-clients with windows too, but there isn't an easy and inexpensive way to do this for small businesses.
Also take into account that once a business reaches a certain size they are going to need dedicated backup servers, mail server, exchange server, etc. All this stuff costs $$$ to implement, and is usually more expensive than the linux alternative.
We run a small business and power our entire sales and support department on LTSP-based thin-client terminals. The cost of each workstation? Well let's do the math:
* Pentium II computers, bought from an auction, by the pallet. About $3.00 per workstation.
* 17" CRT monitor - brand new $89.00
* Fedora Core Linux - FREE as in freedom AND as in beer. w00t!
* OpenOffice - Free.
I am not going to include the cost of my time as a sysadmin, because I'm going to get paid to do my job whether the end-users are on windows or linux. I probably spend less time troubleshooting things now that we are using linux so ostensibly the cost of tech support is *less* but I don't have the empirical evidence to back it up.
The server running LTSP has 4 gigs of memory and a Pentium 4 processor and handles up to 20 users quite nicely without even getting close to dipping into the swap file. They are all running web browser, Open Office, and Evolution pretty much all day long. I expect that this particular server could support up to 30-35 users before we saw a big performance hit. This server cost less than $2000 to configure.
My LTSP workstations are so cheap they are nearly disposable. Oh, dropped your computer on the floor? Power supply burned out? Let me pull another one out of storage, plug it in, and off you go. Try that with your windows boxen.
Yes, I'm aware that you can put openoffice on a windows box and use that, but why would you do that when OO, Firefox, and Evolution are available for linux?
The only groups that I would *not* recommend this solution to would be companies that use and depend on a lot of doc and xls files that are heavily formatted and full of macros. Open Office still can't quite render all
All in all, Linux is easier to use, and less expensive but to really find that out you have to take more into account than just the difference between an off-the-shelf computer from IBM or Dell, and the similar no-os computer.
he completely ignores when you can order your computer piece by piece and put it together not only cheaper for the hardware but there's no price fixing with windows included.
;)
Assuming it's true that you can do that, businesses would be stupid to do that. (The last time I checked it wasn't, simply because big manufacturers like Dell, HP, Gateway, IBM, etc., get such a big discount on bulk hardware orders that it is cheaper for them to buy the parts than it it for you.)
Do you know how much time and effort it would take for techs to research, purchase, and build 100 computers compared to phoning their Dell rep and saying "Give me 100 of model A?" Not to mention the fact that most business computers come with 4 or even 5 year warranties for the whole box. You deal with one entity for all hardware problems this way. Your way has a different hardware vendor for each part with different warranty rules.
It can take 2 hours to build and test a computer. Even if the price for the parts was the same as the price for a pre-made computer, you've just added $100 in tech time to the cost. Now multiply that by 20, 50, 100 or 1000 computers and you see why companies simply do not build from scratch for their standard desktop except in very rare and very specific circumstances.
Purchasing a distro gives you support options that you simply don't get with the free download. Remember when Linux companies were saying they'd make money selling support?
No, businesses with more than about 20 computers are going to want standardization, one point of contact for hardware and one point of contact for software.
Funny, they are using a different url for slashdot,
here is a link to the one where everyone shoots down
his unqualified opinions.
http://osdir.com/Article3992.phtml
You buy a machine it does not matter what comes on it since every single corporate environment images machines when the come in the door anyhow, so the price is still the same.
Besides no Linux administrator worth a grain of salt is gonna install linux on anything anyhow. Everyone I know that runs real desktop installations does so using thin client.
Got Code?
I don't understand why American (and probably European) companies buy branded PCs. Most companies and people here, in India, just buy assembled PCs which are much cheaper. I'm not sure if you use the same terminologies over there so: A branded PC is a PC by some big company like Compaq (HP) or Dell. An assembled PC is one put together by a small shop owner or a small company. Assembled PCs are usually completely customisable. [Branded PCs here cost more or less the same as in the west.] Therefore, in most situations, PCs with Linux are much cheaper than PCs with Windows.
While the writer is making a fair point, one counter-argument is that a Linux corporate desktop installation would quite likely use thin clients like they did in Largo in order to make the system easier to manage for system administrators.
Parts break down and need to be replaced but, d'oh!, that line has been discontinued. Please upgrade your [[insert item here]]. That means buy a new(ew) car or new vacuum.
I've got an old eMachine P3 500Mhz happily running Linux and I believe this box is still capable of doing real work. Sadly, the mindset we all seem to share is that that old box is too, well, old and too slow. So corporate environments buy newer and bigger machines. Why? So our little automation tasks can running a little faster?
I don't know much of the specifics about Google's server farm, but from what little I understand, many of their machines would be considered old and obsolete. Meanwhile, they have those machines performing real work.
My old eMachine might be old, but damn if it can't crank out thousands of our little automation tasks per day. But people still want to have the latest and greatest. Maybe it's marketing that won us over, but if I were a business leader looking to keep costs down, I'd get as much value from these old machines as I could. But that's just me.
-cost of Anti-Virus software (that slows the system down)
-cost of anti-spyware solutions. Typically you need two or more cleaners to get the most common ones.
-cost of downtime. Typical desktop PC in a business is down for most of a day many times a year.
-cost of the forced upgrade cycle.
-On top of that, Windows comes with NOTHING bundled. Everything costs extra. Just managing the licenses in a corporate environment is pain!
Add to this the much bigger probability of data loss and theft, and the Windoze solution does not seem like a solution at all.
Bandaid over duct tape. Legacy crap is what keeps people using Win32, there are no other sane reasons.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
I love (GNU/)Linux about as much as the next Slashdot dezien. In fact, I'm incredibly fed up with Windows not "Just Working". This, my friends, is why I'm currently using a Live CD of Ubuntu Hoary to make this post on a computer with Windows installed. (For the record, my laptop is my Windows box, and I'm at home for the time being. My desktop at school is running Ubuntu Warty.)
However, I have priced computers pre-installed with Linux, and they are usually about $50 more than their Windows counterparts. Is this Linux's fault? No. The problem is that you're paying for a company to buy the computer for you, usually at full retail price, remove Windows and install (insert distro de jour here) for you. While Linux doesn't add to the price, the companies have to make a profit, and their employees would like to get paid for their work: installing Linux on computers that came into the shop with Windows.
Given that situation, it doesn't really matter how good of a desktop system (insert desktop distro de jour here) has. It's more expensive up front to install Linux. Granted, during my entire time on Linux, I've shelled out for exactly one program (Dad needed a Crossover license, as he's stuck to MS Office for work...stupid PHB's, and I wanted to check out the iTunes support), so over the long run, I'd say it's cheaper. During the same period of time, my father has spent far more money on maintaining his Windows computers than I have on my Linux machine. This doesn't even take into consideration that I changed from Fedora Core 1 to Ubuntu 4.10, and will be upgrading to Ubuntu 5.04 as soon as it is practical (I'm thinking about the time of the Gnome 2.10 release) without paying a dime. No Windows user could say that he changed systems or intends to upgrade for free without any criminal activity on his part.
Yes, I support copyright law as it stands. If people are forced to pay for something that sucks so badly as Windows, they'll look into cheaper options. Demonstrating the freedom of free software and the slavery of proprietary systems is, in my opinion, the best way to get things to change. That, and teaming up with evils bigger than Microsoft (I'm thinking that Wal-Mart is an excellent candidate here) can really help end the slavery to large software companies.
I know one that did, at least four years ago. They had a PC department that constructed white-box PC's out of commodity components.
I don't know if they still do it, since desktop prices have dropped to the point that it is difficult to save much money by doing it yourself.
No, he doesn't ignore these facts. Your average business doesn't have the time or inclination to by a computer piece by piece and put it together. When I need a computer, I run down to the local CompuSmart, and find something. Why? Because I need a computer now, not later. I rarely have spare computers lying around doing nothing.
/. response based on not RTFA. His article was targetted at businesses, not your home user who has the time to build a custom machine.
Your response is a typical
Listen, I'll make you a deal. You claim a lower TCO on your custom machines than what I can find prepackaged at CompuSmart. Okay, fair enough. Put your money where your mouth is.
Provide the same service that HP or Dell or Compaq provide in their machines at CompuSmart by doing it yourself. Next time I need 10 machines, I will call you up, and order them from you. Of course,
I expect they are here the same day. I expect that I will pay you on delivery. And I expect they are already preinstalled with an OS. All of course at a lower cost than what I can get at CompuSmart.
Jason Lotito
I disagree with the poster claiming parent is an idiot. It is basic economics - a company wants a hundred platforms pre-built and installed from a 'parts list' then any corporate entity with half a brain cell is going to do this. (And they DO) Who gives a rats if IBM / DELL or whoever do not. (That is speculation at best, as I'm sure they do - just need to find the right contact)
The CTO in this instance simply did not do what most would consider even rudimentary research. He would be more deserving of the term 'ignorant' (or idiot)
The thing you're missing (and the one that I'm sure is mentioned elsewhere on this thread, and that the author is hinting at) is that one of the main arguments for a lower Linux TCO than Windows TCO is that it avoids the Microsoft tax, thus saving you a lot up front to offset the possibly higher costs of learning the system.
I guess this isn't usually true in the corporate world.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Unfortunately, the article is very true.
It can be difficult to get pre-installed Linux desktop.
Servers, though, a totally different matter. Here you can make really large savings. Especially when you consider that you don't need all those CALs. Compare a Windows Server 2003 running Windows Terminal Server and having 20 Windows XP desktops connecting to it, to a completely Linux Desktop OS and Linux Server OS solution, and you're biggest saving is in the server area. Heck, according to this article the Linux Server / Windows Desktop would be the cheapest solution!
Actually, I think it's you who's missing the point. First off, to get it out of the way, I hate MS, I use Linux at home, blah blah blah.
Anyway... have you ever worked for a large company, say, a bank or large corporate office, with procurement policies? I think you haven't, otherwise you would know that just telling them "Just buy a couple hundred motherboards, HDD's, CPU's, RAM sticks, cases, monitors, keyboards and mice and have your techie guy working in the basement put them together for you over your lunch break and install Linux on them." just ain't gonna fly. They are large companies, they do business, their business is not computers, but they need computers to run their business, so they look for other large companies that assure them that they are getting solid computers that will get the job done. They're going to buy Dell, or HP, or IBM. They are *not* going to show up at Bob's Discount Linux Shop and order a couple hundred desktops. And they are not going to give their one IT guy back in the server room a pile of components. They are going to go with a large supplier who will deliver a bunch of pre-built, pr-econfigured machines that they can plug into their network, put their username and password in, and get to work.
As for mom and dad and grandma, you try telling them to buy the components and build it themselves. Or telling them to go to Bob's Discount Linux Shop when they can get the same computer with an OS they allready know, and often for a couple hundred dollars less thanks to the discounts the big companies offer that small shops just can't match. They want a computer thay can buy, plug in, and start sharing pictures. They don't know, or care, about Linux or wether it's better/cheaper/sexier. They didn't buy a windows machine. They bought a Dell.
The point the guy makes in the article is completely valid: Unless and until large suppliers like Dell/HP/IBM make computers preconfigured with some flavour of Linux available, and make them cheaper than a comparable Windows box, then Linux will never be 'cheaper' or 'free' to the 99% of people out there who aren't geeks like us.
As a bit of background on me, I also work with Windows 2000-2003 *and* Linux servers for a living, in an environment where we have all our outward-facing machines running Linux and acting as webservers/webapp servers/firewalls/VPN server, and inside the network itself we've got several Windows 2000 and 2003 servers running Active Directory, Exchange, and several proprietary apps that require a server component running on a Windows NT-variant, and a client component running on a Windows desktop. Point is, I work with both Windows and Linux servers and desktops on a daily basis, I have some idea what I'm talking about.
"Two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the first one." - Albert Einstein
Yes, as you say Access is dangerous. But as I see it this is also its advantage: you can have a non-programmer or beginning programmer who works in the area that the programme deals with and who understands what the program needs to do writing a working prototype. Of course the thing to do is to get the tool to IT before scope creep has gone to far so it can be re-written properly. I haven't thought through this fully but sometimes I think it would be better to get a semi-working access program as a specification rather than a bunch of power-point slides or word document with an ill thought out description of what the application is supposed to do. At least the Access guy is forced to think a little bit about the business logic of the application. We need more tools to bridge gap between programmers and users and Access possibly helps with this-- though I'm sure there are better ways of bridging that gap.
W. McDonald Buck sounded like a made up name to me. How about G. Penny Cash, or Exxon Starbucks? W. McDonald Buck as a CTO of World Bank? If you google for that name, you don't find a mention of that name anywhere except at a university. If you search on worldbank.org, that name doesn't come up there either.
I think you all have been hacked, because the article tells you what you wanted to talk about.
Looking at worldbank.org and searching for CTO, I haven't found a reference to a CTO for themselves, only references to CTO's elsewhere. I don't beleive they even have a CTO, honestly.
Just sayin'.
If you buy all Linux systems then you will have to train your employees on linux. Just about everybody who knows how to turn a computer on knows Windows. Not to mention getting administrators with a more rare skillset is usually more expensive. I haven't checked the salaries Linux admins command but I know MCSEs are a dime a dozen. Even if they make the same you'd have to at the very least hire trainers for every single department that will be using linux.
Hey, if you can sell the idea to the bean counters more power to you but I don't think Linux will be cost effective for enterprise any time soon.
In most organizations, the most expensive aspect of a F/OSS migration is resistance to change:
WHAAAAAT?!! YOU'RE TAKING AWAY MY POWERPOINT?!!
People grow up with these programs. They devote time and personal resources becoming proficient with them. They don't want that background to become obviated. They don't want to start over. We who work in technology are just the opposite by our very nature. We like change. We like the challenge and adventure of learning new (and better) things. That nature is one of the things that drove is into a technical field.
I personally think the only practical migration is to first migrate to F/OSS apps on Windows, gradually. Then, migrate all those apps to Linux. So that, to the user, Linux is just another application migration.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Would that not make him somewhat blinded? In government we put out tenders to build things like satellite receiving stations and look 'seriously' at ALL respondents. It's not always a matter of who has the best track record or the lowest price.
I think any CTO not able to think beyond the big few (whoever they are this month) - perhaps shouldn't be so deserving of the position.
Of course he's not seriously going to drop by Joe Bobs with the company credit card - but any sane person would put it out to tender. Describe what is needed, and go fishing through the results. World Bank wont have to build the PC's, but they sure as hell could give a parts list and have it built to spec.
I used to work at a computer store where we assembled computers. He could have called any such store and asked "Hey I'm trying to determine the cost savings between buying a computer with windows and the same hardware without windows. Could you give me an idea of how much an OEM windows license, both professional and personal, costs?". I think $60-$80 is a good estimte to how much it costs the OEMs.
Anther matter is the office suite. I would imageine the full office pro would run about $200 oem. So saying that using linux and open office will cost you $260 less is pretty accurate in that regard.
-- john
(this post brought to you by Grammar Man, picking Slashdot's nits since the 20th century!)
Makes Sense that some organizations would have problems switching like banks, but banks and other existing organizations have other problems. They have an EXISTING infastructure. There is no easy way to change over an existing infastructure no matter how much money you have, take the FBI for instance.
This information should be used to influence new businesses. Linux can also be targeted to single persons for private use since the cost of switching is much lower. A problem arises again that prevents this from happing. Linux companies don't make money selling linux, they get money from consultations about linux, so these areas are not targeted.
On a side note, I see all these comments about Supply and Demand. The supply of Linux is infinite, because thats the nature of linux. So don't talk about supply, it makes you look the fool. You don't need consultents or marketers to create supply for linux.
And large banking institutes (like the largest bank processing company in the country) right all their own software!!! EVERY BIT OF IT.
.NET and those tools.
Most of the software is written on older systems. Mainframes are still heavily used. You really need to get out and take a look around. They are not using
Why do i know...well my wife works for the larget bank processing company in the USA.
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
He's talking about corporate purchases; where the company buys off the shelf, simply re-buying "their standard configuration" each time another cubicle needs filling. These kinds of customers don't build their PC from bits, you fool!
- they are reading this because they want to save money? YES?
Ok then....
And they DO worry about tiny differences in price; because they get multiplied out by the hundreds of boxes getting bought by the whole company.
- But you just said they want to save money? Surely building them from bits would save $$$. I know it does at my university, they hire students each summer to build 10,000 or so computers for them.
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
I'm not a buyer for an organisation, but I assume that the purchase of bulk systems for a corporate client would involve negotiations that could remove the Windows tax entirely.
Why isn't that route followed? Say if he rung up to get quotes for 20 systems suitable for office use (Celeron/Sempron, 256MB, 20GB discs and flat panels) without Windows, that would provide a better understanding of how it is to be done. I will assume that he did look on Dell's Corporate sales site, but I suspect that ringing them up would get a better grasp of the sales cost.
I mean, it's all about demand. If more corporations start demaning "Linux ready" prebuilds, or maybe even boxes with linux pre-installed it will quickly become a non-issue.
With that said, I don't really see Linux becoming all that big on the desktop. Because most of the office users won't start using it at home, simply because 8/10 users plays with their computers in a very different way of what the more geeky types does. Me for example, I only use my computer to code, write rapports with latex, maple and to use the internet. Linux have offered me a perfect platform for doing this work, and have been my platform of choise for over 5 years.
But not alot of uses their computers only for development and rapport writing, most the users found in a regular office use their machines for multimedia stuff. And belive me, very very few of them will like applications like dvdauthor. And I don't blame them really, I'm personally getting a little tired of having to spend time learing to do stuff that are insanely trivial on other platforms. Like mastering a DVD or such, therefore I'm currently saving my money to get a OSX based computer(hopefully, I'll have a sparklin' G5 in about a months time). It's the closest thing to a perfect UNIX based desktop as far as i can tell.
I think the future will be Linux on the servers (to cut down the licences that really hurt, aka. the fileserver/exchange/etc) and OSX on the clients.
I thought your claim was interesting, so I figured I'd test it. I actually beta-tested Heroes 3 for Linux back in the day, and I liked it so much that I later bought a copy.
Now at the time I ran RedHat, but I've since switched to Gentoo. I just restored my old Heroes3 installation from an archive of it that I had lying around.
It works flawlessly.
Now of course I'm not saying that this will always be the case, but obviously someone's done something right, considering the timeframe involved!
As for running a 5 year old version of Oracle, if it didn't run for some reason on your current version of Red Hat, you could always try it on the original version. Or, you might want to get a current version of Oracle.
Then again, it might work just fine.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Hey the Victorian Era was great!
14 hour workday!
No pesky environmental or safety standards to get in the way of profits!
Bush is going to roll back the clock to the good ol' days!
Personally I think it's great American workers voted for Bush so they can enjoy the big fat shaft they are getting.
I agree with all of your points except that one. Everybody who doesn't want to switch to Linux says "but I know Windows and I don't know Linux". In fact, most of the people I've talked to *don't* know Windows; they know by rote 4 or 5 tasks they use for their job or personal life. They are just as clueless about using Windows as they are about Linux. And thanks to Knoppix, I have now proven time after time that the learning curve for everyone I've shown it to has been about half an hour.
It can be irritating, but people need to accept the fact that if they can't use Linux they probably can't use Windows either.
All's true that is mistrusted
Notwithstanding the point this person is trying to make about the Windows tax:
He sure had a lot of trouble comparing prices at the Dell site. You'd think he'd be clueful enough to open 2 browser tabs and use them to navigate to the 2 sections of the site. Might it be a bit easier to flip between browser tabs than to write down configs on a piece of paper? Jesus, if you can't figure that out...
"Clean up the air and treat the animals fair" - Captain Beefheart
He's talking about corporate purchases; where the company buys off the shelf, simply re-buying "their standard configuration" each time another cubicle needs filling. These kinds of customers don't build their PC from bits, you fool! While this is true. There are companies that can build hundreds of custom PC's for you. I have worked w/ a few and they can be cost effective. On average I've saved money and IMO gotten higher quality hardware.
Any IT worker with half a brain knows that you can deal with your primary reseller. I can get really good HP business desktops sans Windows XP or a Windows XP license for about $500 (dx2000's fully loaded, $400 not). That should be the starting point of pricing for the desktop itself. This guy is spending too much money any way you look at it. Has he never heard of a reseller?
Next you look at the cost of licensing. If you want Microsoft's "Assurance", or whatever they call it these days (in which you can upgrade without fee the next time around), a company my size would have to spend about $300,000. The other option is buy each individual XP license at $176 a pop. Neither of these options include any kind of support. Going with Linux, lets say Novell's Desktop Linux (Suse 9.2 Pro with the LDAP client preinstalled and a shiny Gnome configuration), I'm looking at $80 a license. This includes a little bit of support, and an active community on Novell's official forums.
Anyways, from here you have to figure out how to get around the Microsoft Office lock-in, and decide whether you want to go with Citrix or Codeweavers. But that's an entirely different discussion.
And how much time did it take to either type that out or cut and paste into the posting section. Apparently you have more time on your hands than the rest of the world.
FYI: I am not a linux user but I just love reading the comments of OS Wars.
Absolutely!
The article completely skipped the "Total" in Total Cost of Ownership. I mean it was a cute write up, but the MS tax is certainly not the total cost of going with closed source. If anything, it's the least significant factor.
The cost of the OS is nothing compared to applications. For a home user you can simply borrow them or whatever you want to call it, but in a corporate environment you need to account for everything on the machine. Using closed source even a machine that is only going to be used as a fancy typewriter is going to need Office. That alone is going to cost you almost as much as low end hardware these days, if not more.
Now if you're going to be connecting it to a network, well forget about it. Like the parent post mentions, there's just no comparison at that point. Once you plug that ethernet connection in, the Windows box is either going to cost you in downtime or you're going to be paying mega bucks for all your protection "services." That's where the total costs begin. Not end, but begin.
The article stopped far short from even the beggining of the total costs.
Sorry I didn't the article, but for large enterprise environment, it didn't make much sense to build your own PC now that Dell/HP has driven the PC price to a very sensible level for common use.
i onal/software/support and other gazillions issues when you can leverage you buying power(Large Enterprise) to deal with Dell/HP over pricing and then farm out the support job to cheaper oversea locations?
Why incur compatibilty/expertise/schedule/training/
operat
If you attempted to save a tiny margin by forcing Linux/customPC deployment, the last option mentioned earlier (outsource support to cheap foreign labor) is out since majority of Enterprise Windows business and custom software won't play nice on Linux desktop so it will be a challenge from 1st to 3rd world IT support alike for now. This goes directly against the trend of outsourcing in general.
However, if you are a large enteprise with highly sophisticated tech team and enduser environment, the Open Source Servers/Windows client PC combo is the most sensible option for now.
As for custom PC, example Intel manufacturing did that many years ago, and eventually ditched the idea way back as it makes little sense in large enteprise.
The most probable challenge to this paradigm does not come from thinking in PC term, rather by moving to mobile and edge. Example,
1. Gaming/multifucntions devices device, PlayStation, XBox
2. PDA/scale-down devices with networking and media services, SuperPDA, Tivo, misc.
3. Mobile devices with converging features and services, phone/smartphone, misc
4. iPod + i"everything" generation
These are area where all players have active development and willing buyers. As for traditional PC, it has entered the Ford/GeneralMotor/Chrysler era, and the endusers treat it a such. This is the reason why all PC players SW/HW attempted to branch out to other industries.
What does this have to do with Linux? Study the Big3 car producers history, strategies, decision and the likes, you would know where's their priorities and the kind of things they need to address. Apply the generic principle to the traditional PC industry after years of growth and finally huge consolidation.
They aren't just going to go the Dell website, as M.Buck did, look at the range and buy a PC here and s PC there.
No, they will contact their Dell/IBM/HP sales representative, tell them what their needs are, and if they want Linux instead of Windows, they will get it. IBM have a Linux 'client for ebusiness' that is made to run on their PC hardware. (And if he really wants just one workstation, he forgot to have a look at the Intellistation range). If they want no preload so they can install their own Linux image, they will get it. And they can get their image certified so they still get support from big PC manufacturer.
He is correct if you are an individual, or a small business who will not have big accounts with the computer manufacturers. But those, as has been mentioned before, will surely be better off buying a computer from parts.
He is also correct regarding the fact that computer manufacturers put Windows preloads on 95%+ of their computers, and you can't escape paying the MS license.
However, he totally misses the point regarding corporate computer deployment. This is simply not how it works.
Put a server with LTSP, maybe dual opteron, 1gb ram, a scsi drive.
Then put 30 (that's the max I reached) or more diskless terminals, no disk, low ram memory.
I you use gentoo, you'll feel a boost in the performance.
Install openoffice and all the applications that your company needs.
Then, Compare it with 30 or more big pcs, windows and office licences.
Believe me, that works in a company, and its really cheap. You'll have some problems with windows power users, but they'll complain whithout any argument.
ajf
Forget that the upfront cost of Windows or Linux. Focusing on that is like looking and one pebble and using it to describe all the rocks in world.
If you want to look at the cost of any software, Linux or others, in the corporate envrionment you have to considered three main points; managed support costs, unmananged support costs, investment costs. Before you get your undies in a bunch, yes there are other costs but if you slice up all the costs these three can average nearly 75% of the pie.
Managed Support Costs are the things budgeted for. Help Desk technicians, maintenance contracts and such. The cost of a Windows based support person is less than a Linux based support person. There are more Windows people (greater supply). Umanaged Support Costs are those things that are costs generated by unplanned/budgeted items. For example, I sit at my desk and monkey around with getting something to work for an hour. That is a cost to the company both from a resource time spent perspective and from a loss of productivity perspective. THESE COSTS ARE HUGE!
Finally there are investment costs which are things the business will have to do to switch. Imagine a business with a 10 person support desk that is primarily Windows. There are documents, procedures, how-tos, along with the expertise the individuals have built up. Now you come in and say switch to Linux. The business will have to throw away a lot of that list and then spend even more money re-building it for Linux.
Even if Windows and Linux cost exactly the same to support/manage it is a tough sell to a CIO on the topic of Investment Costs. It will cost to much money to switch and for a period of time 1-2 years it puts the infrastructure at risk (new software, unknown problems, etc).
I'm a huge fan of Linux! I have to CPUs at work one is pure SuSE 9.2 and the other is W2K. Even on the W2K I spend my time in SuSE inside of VMware. I am very anti-MS but this is not about MS vs. Linux, this is about costs and risks to switching.
Q: I am short, useless and provide no value. What am I? A: a sig
He's right.
MORON!
what company buy's the pc's from a web interface designed for consumers?
last I checked you ask your buyer for a quote, and your buyer beat's up the company to get the best price by telling dell that HP is willing to sell them cheaper, so dell caves in and sells them without windows.
we do it here, works great.
Fools and Morons buy the computers for his corperation from the online form.
Yeah, but with the 40 year life expectancy, Victorians didn't have to suffer as long as you might think.
Actually, by rolling back habeas corpus and coerced confession, he has already taken English-speaking civilization back to about 1680.
Goes to show what happens when we have an unenlightened leader who almost certainly has never used linux on his "internets".
But when I negotiate for big customers they're putting our gold disk image on our machines. We pay for our site licenses through MSFT, not the PC vendor. And we have a disk image for some servers that's not Winblows and we're not paying MSFT for those. We spec the components and configuation. The only company left out of that loop on some of the servers is MSFT. Our unit machine cost doesn't change.
For a real TCO study the author isn't going to be buying machines retail. But he still has a point. Most companies aren't going to be buying enough machines to be able to supply the image like we do. Interesting. I build my own machines at home so I had no idea you couldn't buy a machine without Windows from the big players.
As long as MSFT can keep a grip on that pipeline and make it a huge pain in the ass for someone running Linux to get a rebate for the Windows they don't use, then that sort of anwsers that thread yesterday about why when Windows sucks so bad does it stay so popular. Consumers don't have enough choices.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
He is comparing XP Home to buying linux. There is no Domain support in XP home. In anything but a small Mom and Pop operation this is unacceptable you need XP Pro in a business.
And at Dell that costs 71.00 more and on a 300 dollar machine 71 dollars is another 20% on each desktop. He does have a valid point that buying a machine without windows should be cheaper than one with windows...
He does make a good point.
:-(
The obvious objection is that he went to the big brand names... and they all have contracts with MS that makes it difficult for them not to sell Windows.
If you go to a white box PC company, they will sell you a PC without windows, and it will be cheaper than their with-windows option. But I don't know any businesses bigger than a few people that buy PCs that way -- they want the assurance of support from a big supplier (not that it's ever all that good in practice, but it makes them feel good).
And also the same doesn't hold true with laptops. The white box builders don't do them, because you can't just plug the bits together in a laptop the way you can in a desktop model... or if they do sell them, they just resell pre-built systems with windows included.
The reason I don't have a laptop computer today is because I couldn't find anyone willing to sell me one without Windows on it. And it wasn't for lack of trying either.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
Quite a few places did it up to 4 years ago.. but nowadays its not cost effective unless you are doing an absolute shoe-string budget, get donated parts and have volunteers assembling the systems.
For everyone else, the sweet spot is buying full systems w/service contract (usually 3 yr). Of course, this means getting Windows pre-installed (yuck) which kinda blows.. however, those purchases do make great LTSP machines down the road.
Most companies can't buy the cheapest computer from Dell or HP even if the computer technically suits their needs. The cheapest computers will have XP Home installed. Some companies can use XP Home on their machines. Many need XP Pro but with the cheapest computers that will be an added cost if it is available. But some companies have site licenses. So in effect the cheapest option means that they paid for XP twice.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You do make a good point there, actually. I've left my home Linux machine (running KDE) on and had friends who use Windows and don't know the first thing about Linux sit at it, and after a bit of fumbling through the menus to find my Firefox, or simply clicking the Firefox icon on my desktop, they're happily surfing along and barely even notice they're not on Windows, they just figure I must be using some funky 'skin' on my Windows desktop. The one thing that always gets them is the double-clicking thing, since I have it set to the usual Linux single-click mode of operation, so they often end up opening the same program twice.
;) And they generally will resist it, at least in my experience. They want their Windows, they think it's what makes their computer work, and they think they know how to use it and that they won't know how to use anything else. The reality is otherwise, of course, but in this case, perception matters as much, if not more.
:)
That having been said, however, although they may not normally care what OS is running so long as their apps run, the moment you mention that they're using Linux, or simply that it's not *windows* their machine is running, they immeditely become freakin' morons. "Oh, I don't know how to use that Leenooks stuff. I heard it's hard.". Likewise, if you offer them a computer, the moment you mention it's not running Windows, they get a scared look in their eyes, start going on about how they don't know anything about how to use that Linux stuff, and start reiterating over and over that what they use at work/home/grandma's house is Windows.
Despite the fact that if they just sit down with it for 5 minutes, the average Windows user can pick up a KDE desktop with little or no effort, the word 'Windows' has become a sort of security blanket for a lot of them. Since they've used it before, they *think* they know it.. And they always want what they allready know. Linux is new, it's different, it's strange. It's not even spelled anything at all like Windows.
As to how to change this perception/mindset? No clue. But I'm working on it.
"Two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the first one." - Albert Einstein
The author's research has so far just consisted of grazing the consumer-facing websites of the tier one PC suppliers. So what he saw only reflects the current marketing decisions with respect to the consumer walk-in trade.
No big corporation would buy the bulk of their PCs in onesies and twosies from the suppliers website. There's a long, slow dance involved where companies are invited to tender responses to a list of requirements, which are then analysed and compared. At that level, one would expect there to be a sharp clear difference in cost of OS and software between Windows and Linux, and one would hope the people analysing bids are less susceptable to FUD.
Of course this is also the point where M$ can try "special" discounts (eg 100%) or other incentives to try to force their OS into the deal.
Anyway, I don't think the author has made his case in terms of corporate volume purchases of PCs.
MySQL and PostgreSQL can both be set up with an ODBC connection locally or remotely to OpenOffice where simple db functions can be performed within the suite similar to an Access/Office link. Or go whole hog with an open source DB server and an ODBC link to Windows Office desktops. I understand Oxford U is planning to phase out their proprietary DBs for PostgreSQL over the course of this year.
First of all, margins on commodity PC hardware are so miniscule that you have to sell *huge* volumes to have a kind of a viable business.
Just imagine for a moment the start up costs needed to manufacture all those boxes and market them!
Secondly, who are the big buyers (corporate users, major retail chains etc.) going to trust? A blue chip corporation with a track record like Dell or HP, or some no-name startup?
Granted, Dell was a no-name startup once, but that was a long time ago and things have changed a great deal.
Thirdly, I take it this notional enterprise will not be offering Windows on it's products - which is probably what 95% of your target market will want. Maybe they could pay the full retail price and install it themselved huh?
As an entrepreneural type, I think I'll pass on this 'golden' opportunity.
Just what we need.
Another paranoid asshat screaming "MS SHILL!!" without even seening the conclusion of the article.
Is it any wonder OSS isn't taken seriously by the broader community?
Why don't you just shut the fuck up?
Why buy new computers? The truth is you can't use a 3-year old computer with the new version of Windows. Then you have to buy. But if instead you just install Linux on those old computers you were about to put to waste, then you'll save a bundle from day one.
And if you have a creative IT department, you can get at least 5 years of good service from almost any piece of hardware, whereas Windows will require an upgrade for every release (even for some service-packs, as we've witnessed with SP2).
Not for everyone, I agree. But I think it's time we stop giving too much credit to TCO papers. They mean nothing unless you are in the exact same situation.
winblows . . . windoze . . .
I love your mature attitude and excellent debating skills. With people like you to speak up for open source, no wonder professionals prefer Windows.
you should also include:
-cost of Anti-Virus software (that slows the system down)
Not necessary on a corporate desktop. You have AV on your mail server; then you lock down the desktops so people can't install crap on them, and bingo, no viruses get within shouting distance of the PC.
And you need the AV software on the mail server regardless of what system you're running; it doubles as a spam filter.
-cost of anti-spyware solutions. Typically you need two or more cleaners to get the most common ones.
See above. Locked-down computers + automatic updates = no spyware problem. Your users can't install spyware if they want to.
-cost of downtime. Typical desktop PC in a business is down for most of a day many times a year.
Your source for this claim? Oh, right, you don't have one. Here's some news for you: in my anecdotal experience, Windows 2000 and XP rank about equal with Linux for downtime. And unless you have some hard facts on your side, my anecdotes have just as much clout as your unsupported assertions.
-cost of the forced upgrade cycle.
What forced upgrade cycle? The one where so many businesses refused to upgrade from Windows 98 that Microsoft was forced to upgrade their support plans for it?
-On top of that, Windows comes with NOTHING bundled. Everything costs extra.
Unlike Linux, which comes with everything bundled, but support still costs extra? Seriously, all serious Windows PCs come with Office installed. Which is all you need.
Add to this the much bigger probability of data loss and theft...
Which doesn't exist. Decent firewall + decent admins = same risk for Windows as for UNIX.
Even the Windows source code that was stolen, was stolen off a UNIX server.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but none of the problems you identified actually exist. Bad luck.
Sorry, but Dell/HP/IBMs combined marketshare isn't anywhere near 99%.
There are literally thousands of whitebox vendors and logic dictates that when they can survive, some people are buying their products.
Only a moron thinks that every company is exactly like the company he happens to work with.
Just some thoughts:
Every company is different. Actually sometimes every department in a company is different.
Some buerocracies will be Dell-only or HP-only or IBM-only while other companies wont.
The only thing I know for sure is that almost all "99%"-claims are made by morons who think that all the world is just a bigger version of their neighborhood.
The article stopped far short from even the beggining of the total costs.
It began with "Part 1" and ended with "In Part 2, I shall look at..."
Did it not occur to you that those lines might be intended to suggest that this one article is not intended to be an exhaustive coverage of the whole subject?
if I could get away with it, I would have the "no name" guys do it, a small hardware shop should be able to do it in a week if they really want the biz (and trust me they do!)
I think you are quite right, in questioning the validity of these TCO studies on both sides.
One major point though:
You mentioned the combo box for Windows Home vs. Windows Pro, but didn't mention a price difference there. I do not believe it is fair to compare the cost of Linux to a reduced functionality version of Windows, as one major benefit of Linux is the fact there is no artificially reduced functionality version. Even the price difference between Home and Pro can provide some portion of the overall picture.
Here in Canada you can buy a computer in a place like MicroBytes.com and save money when you don't put Windows on it, a saving of 130$ to 164$ can (± 120$ US)
We will send you your free MS Office Tools beta, for free, as agreed. Thank you and keep trolling. Our company needs enthousiastic people like you. Thank you again.
Steven Ballmer.
... that wants to see this guy go into politics?!
Grease & Counterbalance
IBM? Dell? This guy has no sence of reality. You can easily buy decent Windows-free workstation for around $300 (monitor not included) in any online store like http://newegg.com or http://tigerdirect.com . Yes, it's not "corporate" solution, but this is the solution my company uses.
FYI, I have an RCHE, I love Linux, and I when I first joined my most recent (small) company - I wanted everything to run on Linux. But now I'm very glad that I/they didn't. What has happened is that my Linux skills have made me too valuable in the server space (where the company makes it's real money) to waste my time and resources in the desktop space which brings in no revenue at all.
So in that way I say I agree. Linux on the desktop will cost you bigtime. It will suck away valuable talent doing miniscule tasks when it can be so much better used to create real revenue. I say people with Linux skills should look at it as a blessing in disguise - while almost all of my "MS" friends have had a hard time making it out there, I have had almost too much work to handle. And when I do need to do productive things on windows system - you'd be amazed at how usefull tools like tightVNC and cygwin are. (and now there is coLinux!)
Eventually, I know for a fact, Linux will take over the desktop too. But frankly, I'm no rush. If the powers that be are too stupid to "get it" - far be it for me to waste my time on less than productive matters to prove them wrong.
Ret. World Bank CTO on Desktop Linux TCO Facts
Did anyone really understand this title? I had to read it several times before realizing it wasn't about someone sitting on a desk or something. CTO? TCO? Looks like gobbledy-gook.
Maybe "Ex World Bank CTO discusses Linux TCO Facts". Even then, CTO and TCO aren't all that meaningful. "Linux TCO Facts discussed by Former World Bank exec." At least then I only have to guess at what TCO might mean, and it's not too important because "Linux Facts" explains most of it. Yeesh.
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
Wow, that brings back memories of a lifetime ago. About 18 years ago I worked a few levels under Buck in the telecommunications division at the World Bank.
I have to say, the World Bank is not your model of intelligent spending when it comes to this kind of stuff, though. I don't think he was CTO at the time I was there, though he may have been.
You have to understand, the World Bank operates much like a government. Everything is very political, much more than most offices. Advances happen more from a buddy network than from actual accomplishment and the quality of one's work is seldom appreciated as much as the quantity.
For example, if you're a in charge of making loans, the volume of loans you make, and not the security of those loans, is what gets you noticed. Everything in the WB operates that way (or it did when I was there).
Money is pissed away in almost every way. For example, a number of years after working there the first time, I was hired as a contractor to write a very basic time tracking package to keep track of billable ours by employees (departments bill each other for various services provided). They spent about $40,000 for me to write this fairly basic software. Instead, they could have spent a few hundred dollars and bought a much more feature rich shrink-wrapped package. My software, while customized, was largely a matter of customized look and not customized features.
Anyway, I'll have to take any spending advice coming out the World Bank with a brick of salt.
Have you considered Wal-Mart? I know they may not be a tier 1 provider but they are the largest retailer (admittedly more in pickles than computers) but I'm sure they would love to start selling to large companies. Comparing systems on their web page it seems to be about $100 difference in price between systems that have Windows and those that don't.
I wonder how many shares "W. McDonald Buck, retired CTO of World Ban" owns in Microsoft , TCO is utter nonsence , he forgets this is a one time cost to switch , retrain , have your programs switched over , the real TCO is how much you save over the long term 10-20 years
Time is not free.
and I bet you are as well. I've got the dual boot for one and only one reason -- when I call up the Dell person for tech support. You tell them you have Linux and they will blame everything on you, seeing 'snow' on your display -- it's clearly a software problem. Got a bunch of keys that don't work -- same thing. You need WinXP or whatever they want so you can run the idiots through their little script and get your hardware replacement parts.
I run finance and it at a small company. Every computer in that place is custom built by me. I remember I upgraded the front office last year and I considered using linux. The total cost of ownership would have been at least 3-4,000 dollars less if I had went with a linux solution. The cost of training would have been ridiculous though. First off, good luck finding a GNU product for word processing and accounting that is as easy to use for a windows brainwashed society. It was tough enough to convince anyone that Thunderbird was a better choice than Outlook. After using a direct labor expense model you find out your office people cost about 35-40 dollars an hour. Training for linux would take a long time. After that, you are most definitely getting questions and problems from your employees, probably 3 to 4 times as much as windows questions. What about turnover too. You would have to find someone else who is Linux literate or train them. Unfortinately, with windows your ROI is much higher than linux. It is going to cost you most in productivitiy and training to get to a Linux desktop. I used a Linux solution personally for about 7 months. I liked it, but the apps and overall solution just didnt pan out as well as using XP. I think windows is a bloated piece of crap, but our business is years away from a Linux solution for the simple fact that the indirect costs are probably 20-40% higher than using windows.
In addition to this, you also have to consider the cost of any data/documents being locked into a file format that is proprietary to a vendor that will deprecate that format when it is convenient for them to do so. I'm not sure how you put a dollar figure on that.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
In Part II: The Hard Truth about Linux on the Desktop - The Hard Costs I'm going to continue my attempt at a more accurate TCO analysis for the desktop, reflecting the hard truth that saving money on the Windows license isn't going to be the big money saver that some analyses have assumed.
McDonald Buck, retired CTO of World Bank
Don't waste your time and energy (and mine), if it's the same (inferior) quality as Part I.
But the story tells me a lot about the World Bank's level of IT expertise.
I surely now understands why poverty still....
I remember that Microsoft used to force vendors like Dell and HP to pay a Windows OEM license fee multiplied by a count of every PC sold, whether or not they actually installed Windows on it. The vendor was explicitly "free" to install Windows, or not, at their discretion. But of course, since the vendor had paid for a copy of Windows, they installed Windows on every PC. That kind of monopolization was probably explicitly named in the Supreme Court declaration that Microsoft is a monopoly. But I suspect that it's been thrown into the trivia heap, along with the rest of the "remedies" to Microsoft's monopolization of the market, in the subsequent phase of court action. Perhaps these PCs reflect some modern variant of that kind of exclusionary licensing technique, where the vendor still has to charge for that PC's share of the OEM Windows license, even when it ships without Windows.
--
make install -not war
could all of you be patient? I think this guy knows all of this. But this is 4 parts, and he is only doing what everyone would consider part one. small to medium sized business need to look at everything, but this is always the first step, how much do I need to spend up front to get my systems. I just hope you all read the other 3 parts just to see where he goes with it.
Assuming poeple buy laptops at walmart, if the laptop is $100 cheaper, why wouldn't a Wal-Mart shopper buy the one that is $100 cheaper? They don't know (or care) what OS is on there most likely. It's an environment where price is king.
paintball
Please, please RTFA!
/. Hall of Shame.
What part of "Part 1 of 4" did you not understand? The article was devoted to comparing the purcahse price (one of MANY items associated with TCO) of a system both with and without Windows. There is NO mention anywhere in the article about the on-going costs after the initial purchase.
Who is the moron who mod'd the parent "Insightful"? The mod'ing of the parent and the parent itself have one a most favoured place in the All-Time
If VISTA is the answer, you didn't understand the question
Sheeeeet! We've been through this so many times it isn't even funny anymore.
Microsoft has deals with the major OEMs for that. We've known that for YEARS. Ever since the "per-processor" licenses back during the FIRST Microsoft trial.
And he's just discovering this in 2005? That doesn't give me much confidence in his other "discoveries".Yes, we know that (or at least I know that).
It's called "monopoly". It means that you have to dig.
The OEMs have an incentive to make non-Microsoft boxes less appealing because they don't want to risk their contracts with Microsoft.A whole article dedicated to the fact that major OEMs push Windows on their boxes.
And all of this from a retired CTO of World Bank.
Here's something he managed to miss (somehow).
It isn't easy (and mostly not cheaper) to purchase the box without Windows...
But then, if you have a contract with Microsoft YOU HAVE TO LICENSE WINDOWS AGAIN!
The license for that box from Dell is NOT transferable to your corporate license with Microsoft.
It isn't how much you can buy something for from an OEM with an EXISTING LICENSE WITH THE MONOPLY... damn, I would think anyone would know that.
Microsoft also GIVES those OEMs money for supporting Microsoft's ad campaigns. So the actual price is very hard to find.
Your suggestion about Wal-Mart is actually a good one. You can compare the price of a similar Wal-Mart PC to a Dell PC and see what the price difference is. It's not that much ($25 last time I checked in 2004).
But then you add in the cost of your Microsoft corporate license (another $25 - $50 for the OS).
So that puts the actual cost of the Windows license at between $50 - $75.
!!!BUT!!!
That is NOT the amount you will SAVE. Again, it's the monopoly. The OEM's will charge you the $25 no matter what. They have contracts with Microsoft.
It isn't worth your $25 to risk Microsoft's wrath.
If you buy in large enough quantities, they may pre-install a different OS for you. But the price won't be the same.
I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling for the rest of his articles. He's starting with too many clueless assumptions and approaching the situation from a single person's point of view.
Instead, buy some Wyse terminals and run LTSP and compare the TCO of that setup for 20 users vs 20 users in a standard Windows network.
CTO? Who likes Linux? Approaching the subject in this fashion to get "real" results?
I'm beyond sceptical at this point.
At the last company I was with, I talked to both the Microsoft reps and the Dell reps and NEITHER would allow that.
That was back in 2000. Now we use HP boxes.
Have you done that? How much did they deduct?
Agree.. In the UK I buy recycled, for example HP PIIs for about $60 US per piece and put Linux onto them. They come from offices and are cleaned back to nothing but they have several years life left in them.
On y va, qui mal y pense!
After reading throught most of the comments (> 3) I can only reply that most of your negative comments about the piece are addressed in Parts II - IV which will be published weekly.
Fair point, though even on Linux I would use AV software to be secure.
cost of anti-spyware solutions. Typically you need two or more cleaners to get the most common ones.
Good group policies and locking down of corporate PCs negate the need for these and the few that do get through can be removed by the company's dedicated IT team.
cost of downtime. Typical desktop PC in a business is down for most of a day many times a year.
I can accept that PCs do have downtime purely because no PC and operating system is perfect, but to state that a typical business PC is down for over 50% of a working day is quite unbelievable.
cost of the forced upgrade cycle.
There isn't necessarily a forced upgrade cycle - my previous employers used mostly Windows NT boxes with Office 97 while my current employer use a mixture of Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
On top of that, Windows comes with NOTHING bundled. Everything costs extra.
Would you rather Windows did come with everything bundled so you could moan about monopolistic practises instead?
Add to this the much bigger probability of data loss and theft, and the Windoze solution does not seem like a solution at all.
Bigger probability of data loss? Hard drives will fail irrespective of what operating system has been installed on them, and any business which does not have proper backup procedures in place do so at their own risk. That surely isn't the fault of Windows?
Legacy crap is what keeps people using Win32, there are no other sane reasons.
Well, apart from the fact that in the eyes of many it is a more user friendly interface and operating environment to work in and of course that a lot of essential corporate applications (customer management systems as merely one example) are written for Windows.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
google
msn
yahoo!
apart from the top result from each search (the article itself), there's no sign of mr buck..
Linux is fine for servers and people who need a POSIX/Unix style environment.
:).
But really it isn't that good as a desktop IMO. At my office I have SuSE 9.1 (KDE) on a Dell P4 3GHz with 2GB RAM, and the display is a GeForce 5200.
For one the display/UI sure is sluggish compared to my machine at home (athlon XP 2500+ 512MB RAM with GF Ti4200). Yah it's X. But erm, X was this sluggish in the 90s on 200-500MHz machines with S3 video cards. This is a 3GHz machine with a GF5200. Looks like I have to install gnome - hopefully that's much better.
Worse: somehow at least twice I managed to get the display to not update- end up with a blank/corrupted screen. Once when I was using VMWare (going to full screen etc). Another time when I was testing out the screen savers. The apps are still there running, but I can't see them, or get back to them - the screen doesn't refresh properly. This in just the first week or two of using SuSE 9.1.
Sure the Linux kernel and other close subsystems are fairly stable. But it looks like the GUI stuff needs a LOT of work.
The kernel and other low level stability etc doesn't help me when I have a few GUI applications full of unsaved data which I can't get to though I know they are still there running.
Perhaps I should have installed and used VNC. But hey, that sure doesn't show it's ready.
Yes I know how to use Yast online update, and I did. That brings me to my next issue: somehow during the kernel update it buggered things up so I couldn't boot. Yeah I used XFS (was going to stick with the default - reiserfs but my boss said use XFS), (I did install the XFS updates - you have to, in order to install for 9.1 - kinda a bad sign IMO).
Fortunately I knew enough to boot from the SuSE install disk and copy the old kernel rpms, then chroot and rpm install them. Then it booted. The kernel update somehow worked when I tried again. Weird. This is kinda "windows"-ish don't you think?
I'm not sure why all this happened. Maybe it's the vmware stuff.
On SuSE 9.1's KDE the copy and paste thing sure sucks (it's better than the 90s though anyone remember the bad old days?). Can't copy a selection from Konsole using any decent key combination (e.g. involving ctrl)- have to use the frigging mouse. Also, the icons are rather indistinctive - all the K apps seem to use the same blooming shades. Makes it hard to notice stuff - like I've got a new message etc. They need a bit more work.
Sure looks that by the time the Linux Desktop is "ready", it'll be just as unreliable as Win2K/WinXP, or worse, and probably just as crappy.
BTW, mozilla is using 126MB of RAM... X is using 76MB. Fortunately I have 2GBs of RAM.
However, on windows 2K and XP I've managed to hit a limit where I can't open any more apps - no more IE windows, even though I have RAM left... If you want to know - the windows task bar actually does give you a scrollbar if you have lots of task buttons.
Haven't run into that problem on Linux yet
KDE is the default for SuSE 9.1. Sure you can probably customize X and the GUI, avoid the indistinct icons and other stuff. But the real skill AND point is in picking the "right" _defaults_.
Who cares if you have access to 1000 themes. If the defaults suck, then the GUI sucks.
Joe Schmoe is going to be using the defaults. And Helpdesk is going to be assuming the defaults.
When I can get a perfectly capable, relatively modern Athlon XP+ box for $199 at Fry's that uses decent components, Linux, etc. there is NO reason whatsoever for someone to put up with this crap. But seeing as that they're perfectly happy to spend twice for Windows...well...I can actually see a reason. :->
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Anyone can sure as hell buy a computer from me, without Windows installed, and I'll charge less than the same system with Windows. Roughly $125 for XP Home and $200 for XP Pro. My rates to come and work on your systems after I sell them to you don't change based on OS though.
One issue identified, which I think is legit, is the question of WHERE is the best place to buy a desktop for open source software from a Tier 1 or other larger provider.
Recommendations?
I actually don't care if it comes with windows installed, my interest is that the hardware is available under linux, no fighting my wireless USB adapter into submission. That and that the cost is good.
Would be great to see a listing, one probably exists somewhere already...
In some cases as the article points out, it may be cheaper to get a copy of windows installed, and then switch.
You can find the OS less PCs on the Dell site by searching for "FreeDOS". For example this one:
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspThese things *are* cheaper than the MS Windows versions.
Also, if you need a large number of machines, then you can send Dell a preconfigured disk drive and they will load that image on all your machines.
Oh well, what the hell...
I don't see what all the fuss is about. Microsoft is paying the vendor to make computers cheaper with windows. It is just part of the packaging like the styrofoam padding, plastic bags and box. Just throw away windows with the rest of the packaging.
When I was young, I had to rub sticks together to compute.
Okay, you can't buy a PC without Windows, at least not from one of the big-name vendors. So if you wanted to run Linux you would need to wipe the hard disk and reinstall from scratch.
But isn't that what most big companies do anyway? Even if you run Windows, you never want the stock installation that Dell put on there. You reinstall the machine with the corporate standard version of Windows (if your IT people have any clue, this will be fully automated).
So I don't see that inability to get Linux preinstalled is a big deal. The main reason to buy a machine which comes with Linux is as a guarantee that all the components have Linux drivers - but you can check that separately.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Well a thousand boxes in a week having each one tested for 24 hour for infant mortality. Then having them support the hardware for say 1 year. But the real issue is not if they can do it and do it well and offer good support. It is basically your position as a manager. Whatever happens your are 95% responsible. So if HP Screwed you over then when your bosses go down your back you just go This is HP so many of our competors who are doing well are using it as well. But if it is no name, and something goes wrong say good bye to your job.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
A really big company phones Dell/HP/IBM, tells them what they want and gets it built to specification, with the OS (Linux/Windows/Whatever) and desktop software all preconfigured, exactly the way they need it to be.
A medium size company buys ONE PC from Dell/HP/IBM, installs it exactly the way they want it to be, then sends the manufacturer the disk drive and tells them to make more.
A small company goes to the Dell web site and searches for FreeDOS, then buys some PCs without anything pre-installed and configures the lot themselves.
Joe Sixpack, goes to Best Buy and gets a preloaded machine with Windoze...
Oh well, what the hell...
From the following comment to the article:
s px ?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=sc420&s=bsd
Re: Part I: Corporate Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth (Score: 2, Informative)
by Anonymous on Feb 04, 2005 - 01:56 PM
It is much easier to see the difference on a server where the market is more mature. Just check out Dell.
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.a
No Operating System [free]
Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition 32-bit [add $799]
Windows 2003 Small Business Server, Premium Edition [add $1,299]
Windows 2003 Small Business Server, Standard Edition [add $499]
Red Hat Linux ES 3.0, 1 Year Red Hat Network Subscription [add $349]
Red Hat Linux ES 3.0, 3 Year Red Hat Network Subscription [add $999]
Nobody says you have have to buy a service contract from Redhat. The software is free to download from their website.
With Redhat you are buying a service contract, not software. I know of one company that doesn't understand this and pays RH close to $1M a year and virtually never calls them. For $1M a year they should dress in penguin suits and stand in the parking lot waiting for problems.
The real problem with Microsoft is that you pay once for the product and then over and over again for service. Plus their service is awful. Call one of their tech support lines and see if they can answer anything but the most basic questions. Linux lets you split the software from the service.
Jon Smirl
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
First, the "Microsoft tax" is not just on the purchase price of the first year's license, it's on the all the years following.
Second, if corporations are too stupid to figure out how to save money, they should be out of business.
And everybody knows MOST corporations - the bigger the better - are LOUSY at figuring out how to save money. Which is why they spend most of their time raising prices, cutting customer service and having their accountants nickle and dime the IRS.
Because management are morons.
As this "World Bank CTO" clearly demonstrates.
If this idiot wants to demonstrate "hard truth", he's started off really badly.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
That is the problem with this type of banter, it is just stupid.
As long as interoperability is RIGGED, it is pointless to discuss "TCOO" in a corrupted system!
It is like trying to fix a CRAP design and then declare some type of conclusion.
Just plain f'in backwards stoopid - more dunb SH--T REVOLVING AROUND WINDOWS.
IT IS LIKE A SEWER.
In his article, he's shown he doesn't even know the history or how OEM's operate.
And since he's going to be checking the TCO for a single computer, I don't think he understands "TCO", either. His entire approach is just about guaranteed to find the "TCO" for Linux is higher than Windows.
So, is he the very definition of PHB?
-or-
Is he paid to whore out his CTO status?
The first would be more annoying. Imagine the articles that could be written.
"Only clueless people think Linux has a lower TCO and even they can learn the truth if they have an open mind."
Why would the "additional labor costs" make it not cost effective? You hire one person to put together boxes - let's say that costs you around $100,000 per year. That one person should be able to put together, test and image at least 4 boxes a day, or 1000 a year give or take. Granted, if you need 1000 all at once, you can't do it this way, but with a company with 3000 PCs, replacing 1000/year seems about typical. If you can save more than $100 per system buying components (and at 1000/year, you can get some level of volume discount from suppliers, even if not the same level that Dell would)., you'll be saving money overall AND you won't be surprised by what you get when Dell changes components because they could save 20 cents. If you need fewer than that, then the person splits their time between putting together boxes and providing tech support.
Buy from Dell/HP/IBM who you know can deliver
If you are buying 1000 systems off the web site, you are a moron.
Since it's a day off and I also have too much time on my hands...
.dll, msvcrt, .net
1. Windows has more security flaws than Linux - anyone who says differently is counting all the software that runs on linux also (but not all windows software). Linux also releases patches for critical vulns MUCH faster than MS. For instance, take the discovery a few years ago that SSL didn't work (on any platform). MS took over three months to come up with a fix, Linux to just over 30 minutes. MS still has unpatched critical vulns in IE dating back to August of 2003!
2. No, I don't.
3. Sure, hardware vendor support for Linux would be nice, but it's starting to happen. And Linux runs on more different hardware platforms than Windows.
4. No Windows Emu here - just Wine (free) so I can run a couple windows-only apps.
5. Funny, how many city and national governments - not to mention major corporations like HP and IBM - are switching to Linux on the desktop?
6. While that may have been true a year or two ago, now they ask me how it's different from Windows.
7. My printer works just as well on Linux as Windows. I am a musician and there is NO windows software that can create a manuscript as well as Lilypond.
8. I never play with scripts - Linux already has the functionality I need. At least I could script if I needed to - Windows scripting is a joke. As to recompiling - what's easier:
A) typing emerge openoffice then being able to use my computer while the software builds and installs itself.
B) driving to the store, spending $400 on MS Office, driving home, inserting disc, having to close ALL other programs, reading a 10,000 word EULA, then waiting, unable to use my computer, while the software installs.
9. You can't admit professional desktop publishing is mostly done on Macintosh.
10. Video editing is still a little rough, Cinellera is pretty much the only pro quality editor out there. However - when it comes to effects and post processing Linux rules. The post processing software of choice in Hollywood is Cinepaint, used on Perfect Storm, Harry Potter, Star Wars (the new ones), etc. Maya runs very well on Linux, and Massive (written for LOTR) only runs on Linux. The major effects houses (Weta Digital, ILM and Pixar) are all Linux shops.
11. Less games are available now, but that is changing. Doom 3 and Medal of Honor are out for Linux, just to name a couple. With Cedega even more are available, including GTA Vice City. As for education, there are actually more rescources available since most Universities software was written for Unix and is easily ported to Linux. As far as Entertainment, I only need two players (one for music, one for video) to play ANYTHING. Windows needs a different player for almost every format. And try playing music compressed with Shorten (a lossless codec) without first decompressing on Windows.
12. I understand Windows very well, and make good money fixing it for people. I hope MS never gets any better or I'll lose a lot of income.
13. I point and click just fine - ever heard of Gnome, or KDE?
14. Right back at ya!
15. You can't admit that naming of windows components, packages, and others are weird and fits profiles of troubled teenagers.
16. I'd rather not have MS's DRM crippled crap media on my PC, thank you very much. I can already play MPEG, AVI, WMV, MOV, RM, WAV, MP3, OGG, etc.
17. There are several front-ends to MySQL that are as easy and powerfull as Access. They just aren't as exploitable, so I guess they are harder - for criminals to crack.
18. Which is why HP, IBM, and countless other corporations, cities, and national governments are switching to Open Office?
19. K3b (frontend for mkisofs and cdrecord) has the same features as Nero (and can handle more different types of image files) and has never made a coaster for me.
20. Yes it does - see above.
21. Th
Open Source for Open Minds
Consider this little snippet from the article:
Mostly the Windows boxes cost up to $230 less when you factor in the big "instant discounts" which are available only on the Windows boxes.
Isn't using stuff like "instant discounts", which could vary wildly from day to day and vendor to vendor, every bit as misleading as some of the other tactics he mentions at the very beginning of the article?
In any case, I second the note. No large-compamny CEO in his right mind is going to pay the stock prices at dell.com or ibm.com. They're going to call up their personal sales rep and say "I'm buying 4000 machines next month. What's the price without Windows?".
The people who have little choice but to pay stock price at the tier-1 manufacturers are also the same ones who have half a dozen friends who can point them to a local grey-box manufacturer who can give them a much better price with better local support. (i.e. they won't go: "Your CD died?? Well, first you have to load Windows on your box, then you have to reinstall it.").
For me, it's literally the computer store next door (OK: 2 doors down). He'll sell me a cheap box for $285CDN (about $230US) without windows, and another $100 ($80USD) for XP home.
The reason why Microsoft makes it so hard to get boxes without Windows at places like DEL and IBM is that they know that if home users can get easy access to Linux, they'll talk about how well it works when they get to work, and that'll infiltrate to the CEO who'll start a pilot project on the corporate desktop.
They also don't want corporate CEOs to just buy their $3000 home box with Linux installed on it 'on a lark' and (once again) find out just how much functionality and security they get (see previous paragraph).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Actually this is stupid. A Dell/HP/IBM is not better if you are talking about a desktop computer (notebooks are different). You can take a tested configuration from ibm.com, buy the components in bulk and put the all together. You are nearly guaranteed that all computers will work just as fine as if you bought them from IBM.
I really don't see any value in buying brand-name beige boxes.
Even if a company doesn't want to build all computers at the premises, they can at least buy it from a cheaper manufacturer. If you are talking about mass-produced computers for office use, you don't need IBM support, you don't need IBM quality (especially since all parts are made by other companies) and you don't need IBM testing or anything else.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
I mean, really, who the hell has a name like that? Especially in THAT job!
Might as well call himself "fictional mouthpiece of the super-affluent"...
...piles and piles of OSS deployments that have saved companies millions, and about which they've written (just search Slashdot for the papers/articles).
Seems like this has been happening to OSS from the beginning of time.
OSS User: "I love OSS. It works for me."
Anti-OSS: "No you don't. You just think you love OSS, and you just think it works for you. In reality, you're wasting all of your time fiddling and nothing on your desktop works at all!"
OSS Business: "I saved big money with OSS. My books are balanced! Woohoo!"
Anti-OSS: "No you didn't. You just think you saved money because the numbers in your ledger tell you you did. In reality, it's not possible to save money with OSS, so you must have lost somewhere."
As far as I'm concerned, if you think you're very happy with a product, and your bankbook numbers tell you that you're saving money, then who cares what's "really" happening in the underlying "reality" of the OSS-doesn't-work-at-all universe?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
this guy's retarded. is this a search for pre installed linux or for what the TCO would be with desktop linux
comparing prices from dell's website is a shithouse method.
ignore the entire article, at best it's poorly thought out, but is most likely paid for FUD
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
For crying out loud, guys, it's not doing anyone any good if you fill your analysis with bias. You could've easily dropped the throwaway, biased lines such as that last one in your post. You sound like Michael for fuck's sake.
As for that list, it's fine, but leave off the OSS-specific items:
> - Secure terminal emulation such as secure shell
(Yeah, I know, not OSS-specific. Generally included as an advantage of Linux/*BSD, though.)
This can easily be included under your Remote Admin item - not everyone thinks that having a console is a BONUS$!!1, some people are quite happy to admin their machines using a GUI.
(Yes, yes, I know it's inefficient, I love the terminal myself, but try to see it from other viewpoints.)
> - DNS, LDAP, sendmail and other servers included 0 best of all they even work with Windows.
Leave that item at just DNS, LDAP, and Mail servers. You don't need to name specific software if you're just listing the functionality of the required items.
> - Open Office
Same as above. Just listing Office software or something general is sufficient. It's like someone from the other camp drawing up a big list of requirements and putting 'MS Office' on it instead of a more general item that covers other office productivity software.
In short, drop the bias. Don't exclude all the little extra narky asides that don't do anything other than making you seem like a twit. Doing so will probably make you look like you have some sort of clue, rather than j-random-unwashed-fanb0y!!1LOL.
Rob Howard
The author seemed to have troble finding pre loaded systems from DELL with Linux.
;)
I just recently had to set up a huge new Linux lab at NCSU in North Carolina. (200+ computers) Dell offers Linux on their desktop systems. Just not on the Optiplex or the Dimension lines. You have to buy their Precision workstations. (RHEL also Works on the optiplex GX270 fine even though its "not supported"
I think this makes sense since the Precision models are the only ones you can get Nvida graphics cards with right now. Dell has Linux support for Red Hat. I guess they need to do a better job on letting people know that on their web site though...
-- If there's one thing i can't stand, it's intolerance!
Jon Walker, CTO of Versora, will discuss Windows to Linux Migration at the Southern California Linux Expo on Feb 12-13. SCALE 3x the 3rd annual show will be held at the LA Convention Center in Los Angeles, CA.
Jon will give business and technical overview of the issues associated with Windows to Linux desktop migration at this session. For a free exhibit hall pass use the promotional code "FREE" when registering or for a discounted full access pass use the code "NEWSP"
The author is a former CTO for the world bank: an international organization with about ten thousand employees spread around the world, not including on-site consultants. He has looked at the TCO question and provided a part one of a TCO comparison. The Organization will not be purchasing 2K computers from Bob's bargain hut, or me. They will be purchasing them from a top tier manufacturer. As a Former TCO, he does not have the clout to get a rep on the line to order 2K machines and is doing a summary closer to a small business. As that, he is checking out the web prices for computers which have a windows tax on them. Saying that he should create 2K computers from parts is not reasonable. I am personally curious to see what he looks for in parts to follow. Especially knowing that the help monkies at the bank are not that helpful.
Yes, I have way too much time on my hands! No Im not the original poster
1. When we talk vulnerabilities suddenly Linux is a kernel. When we talk Linux being used as a server or desktop it suddenly becomes the entire OS. Make up your mind. The Win kernel by itself is quite possibly more secure and more modular than the Linux kernel
2. See some of the responses to parent. One of first was ASTROTURFER. Close enough
3. Some support maybe. Certainly not to the same level as Windows
4. OK, Wine is Not an Emulator, but it is still so you can run Windows apps on Linux
5. IBM appears to be only paying lip service to Linux on the desktop - they have not migrated much at all.
6. Unless they work in IT or are a computer hobbiest, generally they have never heard of Linux.
7. Your printer. Not many others unfortunatley.
8. Type emerge OpenOffice then wait 2 days for it to compile. Id rather drive to the shops and have something installed 20 minutes later. Of course assuming emerge worked properly
9. The point was that it wasnt done in Linux. You just proved the point.
10. Again, you proved the point
11. Yes, a handful of games are available. Pity nobody can play any of the other thousands of games available for Windows.
12. Many here dont. How many still go on about Outlook automatically opening attachments - that was changed years ago.
13. Yes, great example. Run one app that uses QT, another that uses GTK and they look different. Oh, and cut and paste is a joke.
14. Original poster was going well until this one, but it is true in many instances (very obvious when things like "you are teh sux0r M$ astroturfer" or its derivatives appear)
15. The Gimp?? How about all those recursive acronyms?? KDE? GNU? Wine?
16. Hmm...you have a point here
17. Yes that was an obvious troll - but only because powerful was brought into it. Linux does need an easy to use db front end.
18. Office is still used by the extreme majority of people. And honestly - OOo is just not up to the same standard. Only a total zealot would claim that it is.
19. Original post was true sad to say.
20. Ok, you win this one. Support is certainly not brilliant
21. You need third party software for multiple desktops in Windows. And if you are going by the "Linux is just the kernel" view as you stated in point 1, then you need third party software for it in Linux.
22. Both sides are guilty of doing stupid things on the net.
23. The list will start drying up shortly after those.
24. The big problem in the FOSS community is that many people dont donate to anyone. There are many honest hard working types, there are also those who love Linux because its free and dont believe they should pay for anything. They dont seem to realise that not paying for a game will mean that the game wont be written for their platform of choice.
25. Yes, you are right. I have no idea what the original poster was saying
26. If set up properly they are both just as hard to own as each other. They can both be set up easily if one prefers, but of course will be owned just as easily
27. Mac support for USB is the best Ive come across, leaves both Win and Linux for dead.
28. My experience says differently (Im an OS X man myself) but your experience is obviously different to mine. Cant argue with you on this one
29. Many on here bag out Windows with total inaccuracies, then yell out TROLL if somebody tries to correct them (had it happen a number of occassions).
30. Many do, then again many dont!
31. Not true at all, Ive seen Red Hat boxes go balls up for no reason at all, same with Gentoo boxes. May happen less, but it certainly does happen (and no I wasnt running an obscure custom kernel with bizarre hardware - just standard OOo, browser and email).
32. Nothing is destroying MSFT, they are still producing record profits, the
And we rely hardly on desktop components, except for offfice. All banking apps are either 3270 screens (so a good 3270 emulator is a must) or webapps. There is a strong push since 3-4 years to move every software towards webapps. If a project needs a fat/rich client, they have to go through great lengths to justify the need. Permission is hardly ever granted.
For some exceptions a citrix solution is considered. Even though no concrete plans exist to migrate the desktop away from windows (AFAIK) it seems that all preparations to do so are being made already.
to make a profit, teh company building them must charge price of labour + profit.
Do labour your self and you save paying out someone elses profit.
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
The real reason businesses don't use Linux is because they don't want it. Simple market rule - consumer doesn't want something they won't buy it.
Linux has to offer something so good everyone wants it instead of Windows. Pretty simple really.
People will pay anything for something they want. (Example: iPod -- there are better or exact capability replacements cheaper, but the iPod rules the sales numbers.)
Linux doesn't have a serious marketing campaign (and neither do any of the linux vendors), and therefore will never win the desktop, because they will never have a huge base of people who want the product or think they want the product irrationally.
+++OK ATH